Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-22533-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240108134843.429769-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20240108134843.429769-3-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <fb25afab-9586-455a-b8c1-47949035c95a@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtDEKzup63H0iwHkTQCZOdQLUurACCYfEB-MpW+v7JEfag@mail.gmail.com> <92d1b906-6d76-4e96-a688-3a06a0a88508@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <92d1b906-6d76-4e96-a688-3a06a0a88508@arm.com>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:25:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBh-Fc-bN3GMZSR7Dv1VCuck6xL_EQuFLBMkfSLGXSs_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] sched: Take cpufreq feedback into account
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, 
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, 
	agross@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, 
	mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, 
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, 
	vschneid@redhat.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, 
	mhiramat@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com, 
	corbet@lwn.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	qyousef@layalina.io
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 at 14:51, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/01/2024 15:30, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 12:22, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/01/2024 14:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> Aggregate the different pressures applied on the capacity of CPUs and
> >>> create a new function that returns the actual capacity of the CPU:
> >>>   get_actual_cpu_capacity()
> >>
> >>    function name                scaling
> >>
> >> (1) arch_scale_cpu_capacity() - uarch
> >>
> >> (2) get_actual_cpu_capacity() - hw + cpufreq/thermal of (1)
> >>
> >> (3) capacity_of()             - rt (rt/dl/irq) of (2) (used by fair)
> >>
> >> Although (1) - (3) are very close to each other from the functional
> >
> > I don't get your point as name of (1) and (3) have not been changed by the patch
>
> That's true. But with capacity_orig_of() for (1), we had some coherence
> in the naming scheme of those cpu_capacity related functions (1) - (3).
> which helps when trying to understand the code.
>
> I can see that actual_capacity_of() (2) sounds awful though.
>
> >> standpoint, their names are not very coherent.
> >>
> >> I assume this makes it hard to understand all of this when reading the
> >> code w/o knowing these patches before.
> >>
> >> Why is (2) tagged with 'actual'?
> >
> > This is the actual max compute capacity of the cpu at now  i.e.
> > possibly reduced because of temporary frequency capping
>
> Will the actual max compute capacity also depend on 'user space system
> pressure' later, i.e. on 'permanent' frequency capping?

yes it will


>
> > So (2) equals (1) minus temporary performance capping and (3)
> > additionally subtracts the time used by other class to (2)
>
> OK.
>
> A coherent set of those tags even reflected in those getters would help
> but can be done later too.